Beyond the Black Hole

[iMichelle]

Hello everyone on space.com,
Recently, I've had my son attend one of my astronomy classes in college and the topic of the day, "The Black Hole." For some apparent reason my son was intrigued with the lecture. When class had finished, my son went up to my instructor and asked, "Excuse me sir, what is beyond the Black Hole? Do you know for sure if, us humans would actually be flat upon being sucked in?" The instructors response, "I don't know and you wouldn't want to be the first to experience it." So, I'm asking what would actually happened if anything would be sucked in?

Have a great day!

 

[yevaud]

Hi, and welcome to SDC.

Well, what would occur is known as "Spaghettifaction." Seriously. Around lower mass Black Holes, the gravity gradient is very steep. That is, if you were within the event horizon (the "point of no return"), the gravity experienced at your head might be one gravity; the gravity experienced at your feet might be 25 gravities. Around the very high mass Black Holes, the gradient is not as steep, so you might survive for a short while. But the same end result awaits you.

In short, you would be stretched out like a piece of spaghetti (and yes, this would be obviously fatal). Farther into the Singularity, even your molecules, then atoms, and then even Quarks, would be rendered down to their lowest common denominator.

That help?

 

[yevaud]

I'm going to add to my above, for clarity.

What I meant by the gravity gradient with respect to a low mass (several solar mass) Black Holes and those of much larger mass (millions of solar masses) is that the gradient is incredibly steep around the event horizon of a low mass Black Hole. It increases very quickly over short distances as you approach the event horizon.

Around a high mass Black Hole, the gravity increases over a greater distance approaching the event horizon. So the experience would be slower but initially survivable.

But in either case, the gravity ramps up to where you are Spaghettified regardless.

As an analogy, picture a short, very steep hill that ends in a cliff, a lethal fall. If you fall down the hill, you will gain velocity quickly and then go of the cliff. Now picture a long, gentler sloped hill leading to the same cliff. If you fall down that hill, you will roll down slower, over a longer period of time - but will still take that lethal plunge at the end.

 

[ramparts]

For some apparent reason my son was intrigued with the lecture.

He was intrigued by astronomy? How bizarre!

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Hello everyone on space.com,
Recently, I've had my son attend one of my astronomy classes in college and the topic of the day, "The Black Hole." For some apparent reason my son was intrigued with the lecture. When class had finished, my son went up to my instructor and asked, "Excuse me sir, what is beyond the Black Hole? Do you know for sure if, us humans would actually be flat upon being sucked in?" The instructors response, "I don't know and you wouldn't want to be the first to experience it." So, I'm asking what would actually happened if anything would be sucked in?

Have a great day!

Falling feet-first into a black hole, gravity would eventually begin to act on your feet more intensely than at your head. That is spaghettification. (Very loosely defined btw.)

EDIT: I'm removing part of my post because it is inaccurate. I melded several concepts together where it wasn't really appropriate to do so. For now, I'll leave spaghettification and rework the graphic to differentiate between perspectives, information and differing effects that are entirely dependent upon the size of the black hole. Just have to get some time to do it.

 

[csmyth3025]

I was watching a show on the National Geographic channel about black holes. Interspersed through the program were comments from various scientific luminaries.

One comment by Kip Thorne surprised me. He stated (I'm paraphrasing here): "The common perception is that there is a compact object at the center of a black hole. This is wrong. There is nothing at the center of a black hole. All of the mass and energy that falls inside the the event horizon is converted to gravitational energy, which is what a black hole is - a concentration of gravitational energy..."

Is this a widely held view in the scientific community or just Mr. Thorne's personal opinion?

Chris

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Is this a widely held view in the scientific community or just Mr. Thorne's personal opinion?

Chris

Bottom line is that without a quantum theory of gravity we really don't know what is at the center of a black hole for sure. I'm pretty sure I've heard Kip Thorne say this as well.

I know there are some out there that do believe there must be something (compact) at the center - the reason for thinking that seems to usually be from not liking the idea of a singularity being at the center.

 

[captdude]

Whats not to like about a singularity? Just because all laws of known physics break down into a useless set of equations when trying to define or describe one is no reason to with hold the love for this little concept.................

 

[Keln]

Is this a widely held view in the scientific community or just Mr. Thorne's personal opinion?

Chris

I know there are some out there that do believe there must be something (compact) at the center - the reason for thinking that seems to usually be from not liking the idea of a singularity being at the center.

I guess I am one of them, not that what I think counts since my field is nuclear and not astrophysics. I don't have a preference for what it is, singularity or no (why should anyone?), though I'd love to know for sure. I think it is irresponsible, however, for anyone, Thorne or otherwise, to say what is inside of a black hole with any certainty. I guess I personally view our knowledge of physics as still in its early stages. We have too many questions, and it seems every week a paper or some such comes out that questions even the simplest things we "know".

For all we do know there is a two-headed chicken in the center of a black hole.

 

[csmyth3025]

I was watching a show on the National Geographic channel about black holes. Interspersed through the program were comments from various scientific luminaries.

One comment by Kip Thorne surprised me. He stated (I'm paraphrasing here): "The common perception is that there is a compact object at the center of a black hole. This is wrong. There is nothing at the center of a black hole. All of the mass and energy that falls inside the the event horizon is converted to gravitational energy, which is what a black hole is - a concentration of gravitational energy..."

Is this a widely held view in the scientific community or just Mr. Thorne's personal opinion?

Chris

The reason I asked this question initially is that it's my understanding that there are solutions for the equations of GR describing spacetime within the event horizon, provided R>0. As I understand it, the infinities occur when R=0. Before the point of singularity is reached, however, any object, photon or massive particle will have to move towards the point of singularity due to the peculiar characteristics of spacetime in this region (again, as calculated using the equations of GR).

So, I'm guessing that things can move through spacetime within the event horizon (towards the point of singularity), but when they reach the point of singularity nobody knows what happens (even Mr. Thorne). Is this basically correct?

Chris